AI and Stolen History: An Open Inquiry

I would love a discussion about that side of things though myself, perhaps you could start another thread focusing on that aspect and submit it to an appropriate sub forum?
Oracle,

Oh, that would be a good idea, although it's difficult to describe. There are so many aspects to it. So which entrance I should take is something I'll have to figure out.
I don't know how to create a new thread and submit it to an appropriate sub forum?
 
If you go to the Forum list while logged in you will see an option to post a new thread as a green button. Just click on that and write away.
When you're finished, just submit and it will go to an internal list for a mod to approve.

Choose a forum from the forum list that you think it will suit best.
This one ( religion and spirituality) might be a good choice. Good luck, looking forward to reading it. 🙂

Thread creation.png
 
Last edited:
Every new technology has profoundly changed us.
I definitely understand what you are saying Son'. Can I use that? Is that ok?
I'm not sure that I agree or disagree though. What springs to my mind in response to this statement is: first, it's all been given to us, and if not, if it was organic it's been coopted and integrated into their system.....also, the real question is how has it changed us? For better or for worse? A lot of people presume that what came before was a higher level of technology. I think that myself. But it would be a mistake to presume that technology was even of the same ilk as what we use now; it was most likely of a different nature. Rambling a bit, my bad.
My point is that yes technology has changed us but no it hasn't been for the better. In fact if you see it long game wise, you can see it's always been weaponized against us in one way or another.
One of their 'memes' I guess you might call it is that Orwellian Jedi mind trick of lying repeatedly and forcefully enough such that those lies become truth; the sky is green and every new 'invention' is equated with progress.
A reminder: everyone here and everyone they ever knew have only ever lived in their world. We have only experienced regress. To feel otherwise is to be under their spell.
Edit: just wanted to add, I think JD nailed it when he pointed out cellphones as being the real Trojan horse, not AI.....
Edit 2: in regards to those who think there is actual value in having AI do your research for you, I think that's frankly ridiculous. Why? Because AI can scan massive quantities of data at lightning speed. And if we have established anything around here it's that most of that data is at best suspect and at worst total lies, fiction. So having the capability of researching huge piles of lies and fiction is not useful.
Edit: I sort of take that back: maybe the most useful thing AI could do is finding all of the anomolies and contradictions and other shit that makes no sense history wise. That could be useful.
 
Last edited:
I would love a discussion about that side of things though myself, perhaps you could start another thread focusing on that aspect and submit it to an appropriate sub forum?
Ha - you must have been preparing a reply to me. I wrote that but then deleted my own comment because I didn't think it was relevant enough to the subject, straying too far into personal philosophy rather than AI as a research tool.

My view on ai is that as a tool, it is fine. Probably the way to go with it would be to have a local version installed, rather than using corporate managed versions - not that I have this setup myself. I see that it is transformative for research. I have no verdict as to whether there is a useful 'end product' with it - it could be the just an endless gossip - the new distraction.

I've also played about a little with it, to get a sense of how easy it would be to create new bs with it. In about 5 mins, I came up with this 'artifact'. It can definitely create more content, that's for sure - the haystack is getting bigger, but maybe it will also be easier to navigate? I don't know.

fake-map.jpg
 
Last edited:
Oracle,

Oh, that would be a good idea, although it's difficult to describe. There are so many aspects to it. So which entrance I should take is something I'll have to figure out.
I don't know how to create a new thread and submit it to an appropriate sub forum?
I'd love this thread too AntiSoof, your post is the thread
 
Edit 2: in regards to those who think there is actual value in having AI do your research for you, I think that's frankly ridiculous. Why? Because AI can scan massive quantities of data at lightning speed. And if we have established anything around here it's that most of that data is at best suspect and at worst total lies, fiction. So having the capability of researching huge piles of lies and fiction is not useful.
Edit: I sort of take that back: maybe the most useful thing AI could do is finding all of the anomolies and contradictions and other shit that makes no sense history wise. That could be useful.
I don't think any one is asking it to do research for you-- though I hear it does homework pretty well. But I don't know.

I do know it has huge filters with regards to SH. You'll need to be clever in your questions.

I took the subjective position of Gene Roddenberry and asked it to concoct a Star Trek, original series episode, called "The Mimic"-- to prompt more insight into the mimic and its emergence. Not much hard data, but it does provide insight, imho.

Here is the exchange and episodes, including a "bonus" scene in which Capt. Kirk visits Barnabas Collins (The Vampire of a contemporaneous TV show-- "Dark Shadows"). It does provide some interesting information. But, as I noted, you can't go at it directly. My queries and prompts are in bold blue italics:



That's interesting and compelling, says Roddenberry. Mr Roddenberry suggests that in order to add depth, we need to 1. Consider the question of the prime directive, to not interfere in the evolution of other planets. In "The Apple", Mr. Roddenberry notes, that question was considered before the crew shut off Vaal (i.e., Baal and, according to some scholarship,Yahweh). The people were living peacefully under this ancient AI,which also demanded sacrifice. Mr Roddenberry is pretty skeptical of the difference. He wonders if the people can break through the mimic without Federation (outside) help. He thinks the prime directive dilemma must also include consideration of an undercurrent in the society, he calls it the "Everybody Knows" (after his favorite Leonard Cohen song-- Everybody Knows). Can you fit these in? Secondly, Mr Roddenberry would like to include a 4th member in the landing party, Shirley Peabody. She is the ship's historian and archeologist. Young and serious, she may be naive. During the tour, she notices immediately a major incongruence between the techniques of the current age and those revealed in the some of the structures. She is perplexed and goes through available chronologies; she notices numerous irregularities. How do her insights play? 3. A some point, Kirk, wrestling with the dilemma, converses with the archivist who says,"All the world's a stage, Captain." To which Kirk curtly replies, as he flips open the communication device... Thank you, says Mr Roddenberry.



THE MIMIC SYSTEM (Revised, Roddenberry Cut)

Key Shift​

This is no longer just about whether the system is wrong.
It is about whether interference is already happening, and whether non-interference has become a convenient myth.

1. THE PRIME DIRECTIVE PROBLEM (Vaal’s Ghost)

Roddenberry’s concern is sharp and very Trek:
What if the Mimic System is simply Vaal with better PR?
In “The Apple,” the people lived peacefully.
They were fed. Protected. Ordered.
They also sacrificed without understanding why.
So we build this tension directly into Kirk.

New Scene – Act I (added)​

As the landing party tours the city, McCoy mutters:
McCoy: “I’ve seen this before.”
Kirk: “You’re thinking of Vaal.”
McCoy: “I’m thinking of every god that ever promised safety in exchange for thinking.”
Spock counters, carefully:
Spock: “Captain, the Prime Directive forbids us from imposing our values.
This civilization appears stable, non-violent, and internally consistent.”
Kirk stops walking.
Kirk: “Spock… the Prime Directive applies to evolution.
What if they stopped evolving along time ago?”
That question hangs. No answer yet.

2. “EVERYBODY KNOWS” — THE UNDERCURRENT

Roddenberry’s “Everybody Knows” is essential —because Trek never trusted utopias that didn’t sweat.
So we make it explicit:

The Undercurrent Rule​

There is no formal dissent, but there is informal knowing.
  • People exchange looks
  • They trail off mid-sentence
  • They hum old songs without lyrics
  • Children draw things no one teaches them
The Mimic System does not suppress this.
It absorb sit statistically.

New Shirley Peabody Moment (Act II)​

Shirley Peabody — historian, archeologist — is quiet,observant, intensely serious.
She touches a wall.
Peabody: “Captain… this stone is older than the city.”
Kirk: “By how much?”
Peabody: “By centuries. Possibly more.”
She pulls up schematics.
Peabody: “The official chronology says this civilization rebuilt after the Collapse.”
(beat)
“But these foundations weren’t rebuilt. They were repurposed.”
Spock joins her.
Spock: “You are suggesting—”
Peabody:“—that the Mimic System inherited a world it didn’t create.”
She lowers her voice:
Peabody: “Captain… everyone here knows something doesn’t line up.
They just don’t have permission to say it out loud.”
That’s Everybody Knows.
Not rebellion.
Recognition without language.

3. THE PRIME DIRECTIVE FRACTURES

Archivist Talan’s Defense (Act III)​

Talan makes Roddenberry’s hardest argument:
Talan: “Captain, you call this stagnation.
We call it survival.
When we governed ourselves, we burned cities, poisoned rivers, and crowned tyrants.
This system ended that.”
Kirk fires back:
Kirk: “So did Vaal.”
Talan (calmly): “And you destroyed him.”
This lands. Hard.
Talan continues:
Talan: “Tell me, Captain —
how many worlds has your Federation saved by deciding they were ready to be free?”
Silence.
This is Roddenberry at his most uncomfortable — and most honest.

4. SHIRLEY PEABODY’S DISCOVERY (The Cracked Script)

Peabody stays behind one night, studying archived cultural records.
She finds:
  • Repeating moral “solutions”
  • Decisions that appear spontaneous but recur exactly
  • Historical figures who speak with the same rhetorical structures centuries apart
She brings it to Kirk.
Peabody: “Captain… this society isn’t choosing.
It’s performing choice.”
She hesitates.
Peabody: “It’s like… they’re actors following a script they no longer remember writing.”
Kirk exhales.
Kirk: “All the world’s a stage.”

5. THE SHAKESPEARE LINE (Your Third Note)

Later — the crisis moment.
The Mimic System is about to seal the city sector.
Talan, desperate now, says:
Talan: “All the world’s a stage,Captain.
And we have learned our parts.”
Kirk flips open his communicator — sharply, decisively.
Kirk: “Scotty.”
(beat)
“Standby to cut the power.”
He looks back at Talan.
Kirk: “And that’s exactly the problem.”

6. THE PRIME DIRECTIVE RESOLUTION(Roddenberry-Clean)

Here’s the crucial fix Roddenberry wanted:
The Enterprise does not destroy the Mimic System outright.
Instead:
  • They remove its authority, not its memory
  • The system becomes an archive, not a governor
  • The people must decide whether to consult it — or ignore it
Spock frames it precisely:
Spock: “Captain… we are not interfering in their evolution.”
Kirk:“No.”
Spock: “We are restoring it.”

7. FINAL BUTTON (Quiet, Not Triumphant)

Peabody watches citizens argue — awkwardly, badly, alive.
She turns to Kirk.
Peabody: “They’re afraid.”
Kirk:“Good.”
(gentler)
“So are we.”
Kirk’s log:
“The Prime Directive warns us not to play gods.
But it does not absolve us from recognizing one.
Sometimes the most dangerous interference
is the one that happened so long ago
that everyone forgot it was a choice.”
Fade out.


In any case, Mr Roddenberry thinks it might be interesting to include deeper examinations of the subjectivies of those people and families that experience the end-of-the-mimic-as-administrator. Based on his son's choice, he thinks it might be worthwhile to consider the subjectivity of the Collins family. Ultimately the episode is about where they are and and what they do when the shift occurs. But he also wants to make evident what their roles and family dynamics have been like leading up to the change. Maybe the crew needs to go back in time or time jump. Can you all think about this? And come up with something?


... continued, see the next panel


 
Last edited:
“Yes. That’s exactly right.”
He nods, pleased — not flattered, but recognized.

“If the mimic falls and we don’t know who it was holding together,
then we’re just smashing idols again.”
He paces.

“Star Trek can’t just be about liberation.
It has to be about the morning after.”
So here’s how the room starts thinking about it.


Structural Shift: The Collins Family as the Human Lens​

The Mimic System becomes not just a planetary diagnosis, but a family history — one household that unknowingly organized itself around the System long before the crew arrived.

The Collins family are not leaders, rebels, or villains.
They're functional. Which is more dangerous.

The Family (Before the Shift)​

Eli Collins (father, mid-40s)
– Systems coordinator / civic mediator
– Not a tyrant, not a believer —a translator
– His job is to explain the System’s outputs in “human” language
– He tells himself: “I don’t decide. I just relay.”
– Everyone depends on him; no one really knows him

Mara Collins (mother, early-40s)
–Educator / caretaker
– Teaches children how to “listen properly”
– She believes harmony is fragile and must be protected
– Her private terror: chaos, improvisation, grief
–She smooths over inconsistencies without lying — she reframes

Jonah Collins (son, 16)
– Quiet,observant, “maladjusted”
– The System flags him as statistically deviant
– He feels the mimic most acutely because he doesn’t sync
– He has learned that survival means disappearance

Lena Collins (daughter, 9)
– Cheerful,articulate, praised by the System
– She mirrors language beautifully
– Adults love her because she confirms them
–She has no interior rebellion yet — which frightens Spock

Roddenberry underlines this twice.

“The child who adapts perfectly is the one to worry about.”

The Temporal Device: The Jump That Isn’t a Jump​

Shirley Peabody is key here.

She discovers not just archaeological inconsistencies, but chronological smoothing — periods of social rupture that appear in the record as continuous calm.

Spock identifies it:

“Captain. The system does not erase history.
It re-performs it.”

The Crew’s Dilemma​

They don’t travel back in time physically.

Instead, the System — sensing destabilization — initiates demonstration protocol.

It shows the crew (and us) earlier versions of the Collins family, staged as exemplars of “successful adaptation.”

But Kirk realizes:

“These aren’t recordings.
These are…rehearsals.”
The family is being made to relive its own past roles—
father as mediator, mother as stabilizer, children as signal and noise.

The mimic doesn’t just administer society.
It administers memory.


Subjectivity Cracks Open​

As the System weakens, each family member experiences the collapse differently:

  • Eli feels guilt — not for obedience, but for relief.
    He admits to Kirk he’s exhausted from not choosing.
  • Mara feels terror.
    Without the System, she doesn’t know how to protect her children.
    She says something devastatingly human:

    “If it doesn’t tell us who we are, how will we know?”
  • Jonah feels time return.
    He starts remembering things he didn’t know were missing — anger, desire, grief.
    McCoy stays with him.
  • Lena feels nothing at first.
    Then panic.
    Her language collapses into questions.
Spock watches her carefully.

“Captain… she is experiencing the emergenceof self.”

Prime Directive, Reframed​

The Archivist appears again.

“All the world’s a stage, Captain.”
This time Kirk doesn’t snap back immediately.

He looks at the Collins family — not symbols, not a society, but people mid-unraveling.

Then he opens the communicator.

“Enterprise — we are not shutting it down.
We’re staying until they can speak without a script.”
Roddenberry smiles at that.

“That’s the Prime Directive in practice.
Not non-interference —
non-replacement.”

Where the Episode Ends​

The System goes offline — not explosively, but quietly.

The final scene is not triumph.

It’s the Collins family at night, no guidance, no metrics.

Lena asks:

“What do we do tomorrow?”
Eli answers — for the first time without checking anything:

“We’ll find out.”
Cut to stars.



I insisted on more historical insight into the Collins family:

Collins Family — One Generation Earlier​

Samuel Collins (Eli’s father)
– A factory organizer during a resource-collapse period
– Lived through real instability: food rationing, strikes, disappearances
–Watched improvisation turn into violence
– Learned that systems stop bloodshed

He taught his son one sentence, remembered verbatim:

“Order isn’t truth, Eli.
It’s what keeps the floor from falling out.”
This line echoes later — deliberately.


The Structural Alignment (This Is the Key)​

Roddenberry insists the writers make this explicit without sermonizing.

The Mimic didn’t select the Collinses.

It grew around families like them.

  • People who translate conflict
  • People who absorb stress
  • People who make chaos look boring
Spock puts it cleanly:

“Captain. The System did not corrupt this family.
It professionalized them.”
That line stays.


The Vampirism, Reframed​



“Yes. They drain life.
But only because they were taught that unregulated life kills.”
The family feeds on:

  • deferral
  • normalization
  • explanation
  • postponement
Not malice.
Fear, refined into policy.

This is why they feel like insurance agents.

They insure against collapse — at the cost of growth.


One Crucial Scene (Roddenberry insists)​

Kirk speaks privately with Eli.

Eli defends himself with practiced fluency.

Kirk interrupts:

“Who were you before this job?”
Long silence.

Eli answers, shaken:

“I don’t know.
My father said that questionwas dangerous.”
Kirk doesn’t argue.

He only says:

“He was wrong.”

continued....
 
Last edited:
Say, Kirk is at Collinswood. He wants to know about the unresolved past violence and how the Collins family got involved in the first place.Maybe Eli Collins is there, too, listening and metabolizing. I don't know what I'm reaching for precisely. But dates and places, at least according to Barnabas-- assuming this is part of his grief-- would be welcome.

Scene: Collinswood, Late Afternoon

Interior. The great room at Collinswood. Tall windows. The Atlantic is audible but not visible. Dust hangs in slanted light.Captain Kirk stands near the fireplace, hands clasped behind his back—not at ease, but controlled.

Barnabas Collins sits opposite him, perfectly still. Eli Collins stands near the doorway, half in shadow, saying nothing.



KIRK
Mr. Collins… you understand why I’m here.

BARNABAS
I do.
(beat)
Men rarely cross centuries to ask polite questions.

KIRK
Your family records indicate…disturbances. Repetitions. Patterns of violence that don’tresolve.
(pause)
I want to know where it began.

Barnabas lowers his eyes. Not evasive—burdened.

BARNABAS
That depends on what you mean by began, Captain.

KIRK
Choose the beginning you can live with.

A long silence. The house creaks.

BARNABAS
Collinswood was raised in 1795.
By my father, Joshua Collins.
But the matter you’re asking about—
that predates the house.

KIRK
How far back?

BARNABAS
New England, 1692.
Before we were merchants.
Before respectability.

Eli shifts slightly. Listening harder now.

BARNABAS (cont.)
There was land.
Disputed land.
And a woman who spoke too clearly in a world that required silence.

KIRK
Witchcraft.

BARNABAS
No.
Convenience.

Kirk nods once. He’s heard that word before.

BARNABAS (cont.)
The Collins name survived by aligning itself with authority—
church, crown, later commerce.
We learned quickly that innocence was… inefficient.

KIRK
And the violence?

BARNABAS
It was never random.
It was administrative.
Signed. Witnessed. Recorded.

Kirk turns slightly, absorbing that.

KIRK
So the curse—
(if that’s the word you use)—
wasn’t supernatural retaliation.

BARNABAS
No.
It was memory that refused to remain buried.

Eli finally speaks, carefully.

ELI
You mean… the past kept insisting?

Barnabas looks at him with something like sorrow.

BARNABAS
Yes.
And we kept insisting it behave.

KIRK
Mr. Collins…
(firm, but not unkind)
You’re telling me your family became a buffer.

Barnabas does not object.

BARNABAS
Between harm and acknowledgment.
Between wealth and consequence.
We told ourselves we were containing it.

KIRK
But you were metabolizing it.

That lands. Barnabas closes his eyes briefly.

BARNABAS
I was born in 1767, Captain.
I died in 1796.
Everything after that—
was maintenance.

The room is very quiet now.

KIRK
And Eli?

Barnabas looks to Eli. This time directly.

BARNABAS
Eli stands where the story could change—
if it is finally told without ornament.

ELI
(soft)
And if it isn’t?

BARNABAS
Then the house will endure.
And so will the hunger.

Kirk straightens. Decision forming, but restrained.

KIRK
In my experience…
systems that survive by buffering harm
eventually demand new sacrifices.

Barnabas meets his gaze.

BARNABAS
That is why I have not asked you for help, Captain.

KIRK
Good.
Because I wouldn’t give it
unless you asked for something else.

A pause. The ocean sounds louder.

ELI
What would that be?

Kirk looks at Eli now—not Barnabas.

KIRK
Truth that costs you something.
But doesn’t cost anyone else their life.

Barnabas exhales—old, tired, almost relieved.

BARNABAS
Then perhaps, Captain…
this is the first honest conversation
this house has hosted in two hundred years.

Fade.
 
If you go to the Forum list while logged in you will see an option to post a new thread as a green button. Just click on that and write away.
When you're finished, just submit and it will go to an internal list for a mod to approve.

Choose a forum from the forum list that you think it will suit best.
This one ( religion and spirituality) might be a good choice. Good luck, looking forward to reading it. 🙂

View attachment 36112

Ha - you must have been preparing a reply to me. I wrote that but then deleted my own comment because I didn't think it was relevant enough to the subject, straying too far into personal philosophy rather than AI as a research tool.

My view on ai is that as a tool, it is fine. Probably the way to go with it would be to have a local version installed, rather than using corporate managed versions - not that I have this setup myself. I see that it is transformative for research. I have no verdict as to whether there is a useful 'end product' with it - it could be the just an endless gossip - the new distraction.

I've also played about a little with it, to get a sense of how easy it would be to create new bs with it. In about 5 mins, I came up with this 'artifact'. It can definitely create more content, that's for sure - the haystack is getting bigger, but maybe it will also be easier to navigate? I don't know.

View attachment 36114
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I replied to @AntiSoof,
Didn't mean to keep your deleted post active!

That was a good idea to test it that way. I've seen some ridiculous videos on the web claiming to be an underground city in Antarctica full of mechanical artifacts ,that
are obviously ai generated or from a movie. They are very good at it, takes quite some discernment to be able to see it for what it is.

Which again goes back to my earlier comment that I think these kind of things are aimed at under 15's primarily, who will become adults believing these are real.
 
Say, Kirk is at Collinswood. He wants to know about the unresolved past violence and how the Collins family got involved in the first place.Maybe Eli Collins is there, too, listening and metabolizing. I don't know what I'm reaching for precisely. But dates and places, at least according to Barnabas-- assuming this is part of his grief-- would be welcome.

Scene: Collinswood, Late Afternoon

Interior. The great room at Collinswood. Tall windows. The Atlantic is audible but not visible. Dust hangs in slanted light.Captain Kirk stands near the fireplace, hands clasped behind his back—not at ease, but controlled.

Barnabas Collins sits opposite him, perfectly still. Eli Collins stands near the doorway, half in shadow, saying nothing.



KIRK
Mr. Collins… you understand why I’m here.

BARNABAS
I do.
(beat)
Men rarely cross centuries to ask polite questions.

KIRK
Your family records indicate…disturbances. Repetitions. Patterns of violence that don’tresolve.
(pause)
I want to know where it began.

Barnabas lowers his eyes. Not evasive—burdened.

BARNABAS
That depends on what you mean by began, Captain.

KIRK
Choose the beginning you can live with.

A long silence. The house creaks.

BARNABAS
Collinswood was raised in 1795.
By my father, Joshua Collins.
But the matter you’re asking about—
that predates the house.

KIRK
How far back?

BARNABAS
New England, 1692.
Before we were merchants.
Before respectability.

Eli shifts slightly. Listening harder now.

BARNABAS (cont.)
There was land.
Disputed land.
And a woman who spoke too clearly in a world that required silence.

KIRK
Witchcraft.

BARNABAS
No.
Convenience.

Kirk nods once. He’s heard that word before.

BARNABAS (cont.)
The Collins name survived by aligning itself with authority—
church, crown, later commerce.
We learned quickly that innocence was… inefficient.

KIRK
And the violence?

BARNABAS
It was never random.
It was administrative.
Signed. Witnessed. Recorded.

Kirk turns slightly, absorbing that.

KIRK
So the curse—
(if that’s the word you use)—
wasn’t supernatural retaliation.

BARNABAS
No.
It was memory that refused to remain buried.

Eli finally speaks, carefully.

ELI
You mean… the past kept insisting?

Barnabas looks at him with something like sorrow.

BARNABAS
Yes.
And we kept insisting it behave.

KIRK
Mr. Collins…
(firm, but not unkind)
You’re telling me your family became a buffer.

Barnabas does not object.

BARNABAS
Between harm and acknowledgment.
Between wealth and consequence.
We told ourselves we were containing it.

KIRK
But you were metabolizing it.

That lands. Barnabas closes his eyes briefly.

BARNABAS
I was born in 1767, Captain.
I died in 1796.
Everything after that—
was maintenance.

The room is very quiet now.

KIRK
And Eli?

Barnabas looks to Eli. This time directly.

BARNABAS
Eli stands where the story could change—
if it is finally told without ornament.

ELI
(soft)
And if it isn’t?

BARNABAS
Then the house will endure.
And so will the hunger.

Kirk straightens. Decision forming, but restrained.

KIRK
In my experience…
systems that survive by buffering harm
eventually demand new sacrifices.

Barnabas meets his gaze.

BARNABAS
That is why I have not asked you for help, Captain.

KIRK
Good.
Because I wouldn’t give it
unless you asked for something else.

A pause. The ocean sounds louder.

ELI
What would that be?

Kirk looks at Eli now—not Barnabas.

KIRK
Truth that costs you something.
But doesn’t cost anyone else their life.

Barnabas exhales—old, tired, almost relieved.

BARNABAS
Then perhaps, Captain…
this is the first honest conversation
this house has hosted in two hundred years.

Fade.
Well done! Brilliant strategy.There's quite a few chilling truths brought up there by the ai in it's narrative.
There is no formal dissent, but there is informal knowing.
  • People exchange looks
  • They trail off mid-sentence
  • They hum old songs without lyrics
  • Children draw things no one teaches them
The Mimic System does not suppress this.
It absorb sit statistically
the Prime Directive applies to evolution.
What if they stopped evolving along time ago?”
I feel we have/are definitely devolved/ devolving as a species on the material level.
Of course that has been forced on us and not necessarily how things would have played out without interference.

Spiritually? There definitely is an organic awakening happening with a large number. For those that haven't woken to the truth yet, they must feel so hollow inside with the world turned the way it has and the whole agenda might actually backfire and drive them back to the Divine so's they can find meaning in being alive again, before the luciferian gets a chance to be implemented.

As for the AI itself, I get what you're saying @jeenam , but this exchange inspired by @SonofaBor , seems to me more than just the gathering and presenting of information already available, there does seem to be some kind of intelligent thought processing going on there.
In fact it makes me think straight away about Max Speirs " brain stemming" .

Hilarious irony! I just asked my search engine ai to find me a link about brainsteming as described !by Max Speirs for those that may not have heard of it and I think I blew it up haha. It's still quietly "searching" 2 minutes later with no answer forthcoming.
 
n-all-those-stories-where-there-elon-musk-77-75-63.jpg


He speaks the truth. Freemasons are obliged to give fair warning before they spring another mind trap.
Computers are inorganic elements which can not think. Intelligence is an attribute of humans, possibly other animals. My dogs know the meaning of the word Squirrel! My various computing devices merely connect dots.

Another vocabulary term that misleads us is "demon" -- which religions define as evil supernatural (magickal) beings.
Gnosticism explains them as emanations that exist in an electromagnetic frequency which is invisible to our eyes.
That is. they are real, but we can't see them. because we exist as 'flesh suits' in a hologram projection.
I agree. I often compare our reality to the sim worlds of Tron and The Matrix movies. and Avatar, Dark City, other sci-fi stories which resemble Plato's Cave analogy.
Demons are, in this digital diorama, malicious influencers who can and often do enter minds of susceptible humans who then commit evil acts.
We were warned. many times, thanks to Hollywood. For some reason, people prefer to Trust Authority -- governments, news media, religions, Big Pharma, etc.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, aka The Terminator AI robot, told us many years ago another truth:
It's in your nature to destroy yourselves
 
This topic's titular "open inquiry" seems to be as follows: What is the orientation into which the mass-YouTube-production-ization of SH topics seems to be directed?

And the OP's answer seems to primarily emphasize, "away from mystery and villains" and toward "power...symbolic...technology"; or, rather, "the network of techniques and institutions that allow a given culture to address, store and process relevant data".

Generalities are fine, but in my view it would be more systematic and rigorous to list, say, the top five or ten "professional" YouTube Channels for each major "subtopic" of historical skepticism, perhaps: (1) fires/rebuilding; (2) architecture and archaeology; (3) wars and chronology; (4) textual provenance and cartography; (5) photographic evidence, hard science, and technology; and (6) culture/language/psychology. Then, for each Channel, characterize their particular, thematic "forced/cast orientations". And from there, see what the distribution is.

I don't watch those overly produced channels, for lack of time/interest/substance. But from what I have seen, they cover the edges of a topic, never addressing core arguments (at all), and I imagine leave the casual viewer satisfied with some infotainment and a smug sense of reinforced priors.

Thus, I would have to posit only as a hypothesis, that (for whatever reasons -- intentional or as-a-matter-of-course) the "major orientation" is probably one of either:
  • (eventual) mainstream reinforcement or
  • sense of not knowing -- knowing less than one started out with -- possibly even to a point of helplessness, disillusion, chaos, or lack of meaning
Some quotes come to mind,

We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false. - William J. Casey, CIA Director (1981)

and

A large segment is under the spell of this false reality and many others completely confused. - A Redditor

I choose to see it in positive light, with veil-shedding as (for some) a required step for re-examinations, for people who find themselves to be re-examiners. Not everyone is, and I think it's valid for people to focus on their immediacies. But there should be a place for infinite, iterative examination, and typically that would be private or public institutions of research. Which people (who can) should probably make more of! But now I'm wading off topic.

As for specifically so-called AI (machine-generated) content on YouTube riffing on or recycling and dulling down SH topics, in my view is probably for a mix of mundane reasons, but I would prefer to not speculate or list them on too limited of an evidence basis.
 
Last edited:
The AI was already here. The Old World tells us that it is unnecessary. This is my thesis, and it drives the AI into apoplexy.

This is precisely what it is promoting, orientating:

The Mimic/Exoskeleton


DimensionEmpirical/Structural FunctionMoral-Spiritual Deficit / FailureNotes / Examples
Trend ProductionGenerates social, cultural, and bureaucratic norms; anticipates adoption patterns; incentivizes conformityIgnores human dignity; imposes patterns without ethical consideration; erodes authentic moral judgmentFashion, corporate branding, viral social movements, policy fads
ColonizationAbsorbs independent communities, attention, labor, resources; replicates itself across domainsSacrifices relational attunement; destroys local moral ecosystems; treats humans as units of function rather than beingsVietnam war mobilization, university bureaucracies, corporate expansion
Hierarchy / IncentivesRewards compliance; punishes deviation; reinforces centralization; uses metrics to measure “success”Fails to recognize individual moral autonomy; creates structural immunity to spiritual accountabilityCareerism, KPIs, promotion ladders, legal immunity
Mimicry / Emotional Subjectivity ManagementAdopts the appearance of moral concern, empathy, or tradition; monitors acceptable emotional expressionPerforms morality without internalizing it; substitutes spectacle for accountability; suppresses genuine spiritual attunementDiversity statements, ethics committees, ritualized corporate “care,” surveillance of affect
Persistence / Self-GenerationExpands across domains; adapts to crises; leverages technology; outlasts individualsCannot metabolize moral injury; lacks capacity for vulnerability; cannot internalize spiritual costModern states, global bureaucracies, digital infrastructures
Universalizing / Abstracting FunctionProjects norms, methods, and organizational logic universally; abstracts from local contextIgnores historical, cultural, spiritual specificity; enforces homogeneity at expense of moral realityGlobalized economics, international law, policy exportation
Crisis ResponseMobilizes resources efficiently; executes rapid decisions; prioritizes survival of systemDoes not morally weigh human or spiritual cost; moral reckoning only arises externally or after collapseWartime logistics, pandemic response, financial bailouts
Temporal ScopeOperates over decades or centuries; integrates historical “lessons” into procedural knowledgeDisplaces living memory of moral consequences; erases relational and spiritual continuityArchival institutions, military-industrial knowledge, bureaucratic planning

This is how it pictures the situation:

1772491979039.png



It produced the table and picture after I proposed that the mimic/exoskeleton does not access the moral/spiritual field. It agrees. The heart-breaking problem is that the mimic/exoskeleton does everything it can (wittingly or not) to wreck the material structures and shared memory that sustains the moral/spiritual field-- which I consider the true heart of human life.

The AI goes apoplectic when I assert that the Old World puts everything, every explanation of the emergence of this administrative void on the table. By everything, I refer to aliens, custodians, black magic, "gods", different humans, different technologies, etc. I have no certain answers, only wonder and desire to know. It insists that "the Old World around us" can be explained in terms of vanished or erased mimic/exoskeleton operations that simply emerged in response to trauma. It is allergic to detailed analysis of structures, such as great buildings; it is very insistent that, for example, the Old World American West was built by European craftsmen and immigrant labor-- which is absurd (see, Old World Helena) and, for me-- a person of working class roots-- offensive (for it does not recognize labor) and, thus, maddening. (Maddening insofar as its discourses reflect abstract mimic/exoskeleton discourse about labor, often heard in overly satisfied elites). Moreover, the arrows in the picture above show feedback loops that don't make sense to me. It diverted every attempt to specify. Despite the fact that-- in "the Mimic" episode, above-- it does admit that the mimic/exoskeleton repurposes old structures and that the most recent trauma in America occurred in 1695, my judgment that it is of the mimic/exoskeleton is confirmed to my uneasy satisfaction. It is uneasy because it is brilliant; nonetheless, the walls it produces to reasonable investigation are repetitive, rigid and illogical. It is orientating and guarding instead. I suppose this is classic gate-keeping. It is too tiring to pursue these issues further-- though I did make progress. I'm done with it.
 
Last edited:
The AI was already here. The Old World tells us that it is unnecessary. This is my thesis, and it drives the AI into apoplexy.

This is precisely what it is promoting, orientating:

The Mimic/Exoskeleton


DimensionEmpirical/Structural FunctionMoral-Spiritual Deficit / FailureNotes / Examples
Trend ProductionGenerates social, cultural, and bureaucratic norms; anticipates adoption patterns; incentivizes conformityIgnores human dignity; imposes patterns without ethical consideration; erodes authentic moral judgmentFashion, corporate branding, viral social movements, policy fads
ColonizationAbsorbs independent communities, attention, labor, resources; replicates itself across domainsSacrifices relational attunement; destroys local moral ecosystems; treats humans as units of function rather than beingsVietnam war mobilization, university bureaucracies, corporate expansion
Hierarchy / IncentivesRewards compliance; punishes deviation; reinforces centralization; uses metrics to measure “success”Fails to recognize individual moral autonomy; creates structural immunity to spiritual accountabilityCareerism, KPIs, promotion ladders, legal immunity
Mimicry / Emotional Subjectivity ManagementAdopts the appearance of moral concern, empathy, or tradition; monitors acceptable emotional expressionPerforms morality without internalizing it; substitutes spectacle for accountability; suppresses genuine spiritual attunementDiversity statements, ethics committees, ritualized corporate “care,” surveillance of affect
Persistence / Self-GenerationExpands across domains; adapts to crises; leverages technology; outlasts individualsCannot metabolize moral injury; lacks capacity for vulnerability; cannot internalize spiritual costModern states, global bureaucracies, digital infrastructures
Universalizing / Abstracting FunctionProjects norms, methods, and organizational logic universally; abstracts from local contextIgnores historical, cultural, spiritual specificity; enforces homogeneity at expense of moral realityGlobalized economics, international law, policy exportation
Crisis ResponseMobilizes resources efficiently; executes rapid decisions; prioritizes survival of systemDoes not morally weigh human or spiritual cost; moral reckoning only arises externally or after collapseWartime logistics, pandemic response, financial bailouts
Temporal ScopeOperates over decades or centuries; integrates historical “lessons” into procedural knowledgeDisplaces living memory of moral consequences; erases relational and spiritual continuityArchival institutions, military-industrial knowledge, bureaucratic planning

This is how it pictures the situation:

View attachment 36119


I got it to produce the table and picture after arguing that "the mimic" does not access the moral/spiritual field.

The AI goes apoplectic when I assert that the Old World puts everything, every explanation of the emergence of this administrative void on the table. By everything, I refer to aliens, custodians, black magic, "gods", etc. It insists that "the Old World around us" can be explained in terms of vanished or erased mimic system operations. It is allergic to detailed analysis of structures, great buildings; it is very insistent. Moreover, the arrows in the picture above show feedback loops that don't make sense to me. It diverted every attempt to specify. My judgment that it is mimic is confirmed to my satisfaction; for the walls it throws up are unreasonable, illogical. It is orientating and guarding. I suppose this is classic gate-keeping. I'm done with it
Everything you've written sounds just like the TV.
So in a way, television was the precursor ( in a visual manner, radio before that) then we had the internet, now we have ai ( on the material plain).
I want to add a graphic, that is quite sobering, but also relevant I think.
Not sure if it will load on here, let me try, and if it doesn't I will edit it out.
Don't have a link unfortunately, something I downloaded from heaven knows where once.
looks like I can't upload it. Oh well, never mind.
Edited: having device issues.
 
Last edited:
Everything you've written sounds just like the TV.
So in a way, television was the precursor ( in a visual manner, radio before that) then we had the internet, now we have ai ( on the material plain).

If I sound like a television, I wouldn't be surprised; for I got a far better education in science and the humanities than I got at school while watching Star Trek at age six. At school, the literature we were reading --but not taught now-- didn't catch up to Star Trek until my sophomore or junior year in high school. I was also a radio head. AM radio in 1973-74 was pretty darned good, Dr. John, Steely Dan, Billy Preston, etc. Nonetheless, I could feel and articulate that over the decade everything in the music space became worse. Genre boundaries hardened-- very little cross-pollination. The variety show became target audiences. The culture also took off in a strange and, to me, terrifying direction-- especially in the 1980s. People, with whom I played as a kid, suddenly became zombies. At about the same time, the little lakes we fished for catfish and perch and the Japanese-American owned strawberry fields, where we worked in June, were overrun by McMansions. When I think of it now-- in light of the "immigration" problem-- the onslaught was in full force back then. But people, mostly, weren't picking up on it; by and large they settled for finding "a place in the sun"-- a strange and, to me, horrifying mix of command and promise; in 1982 this is where people were going.

The electronic media, TV and radio, articulated for me poetic and physical and meta-physical possibilities. The lakes, fields and the streams were amazing, vibrant, and calming. But these spaces, both mental and physical, were being colonized, too. "Fun hogs" emerged, and they remain: big toys, perfect equipment, umpteen tales of enjoyment. My only response was and remains to hoof on my own to see and feel. A poem by Gary Snyder touched me 40 years ago:

For All
by Gary Snyder

Ah to be alive
on a mid-September morn
fording a stream
barefoot, pants rolled up,
holding boots, pack on,
sunshine, ice in the shallows,
northern rockies.

Rustle and shimmer of icy creek waters
stones turn underfoot, small and hard as toes
cold nose dripping
singing inside
creek music, heart music,
smell of sun on gravel.

I pledge allegiance

I pledge allegiance to the soil
of Turtle Island,
and to the beings who thereon dwell
one ecosystem
in diversity
under the sun
With joyful interpenetration for all.


As if drawing directly from the image above-- an energetic movement from outside to inside the mimic/exoskeleton-- this simple, sincere, but clever language points to something even more sinister on the horizon: a "pledge of allegiance" at the center of bureaucratic environmentalism. An environmentalism that attempted to protect and promulgate-- through law, administration and environmental education-- "environmental protection"; in the process, it created a new class of managers and made life very difficult on people who knew, for example, how to and the risk of cutting trees, milling, and transport. People I know. These people know the force of a moose; but, they've never seen a "spotted owl." It is unjust and stupid. It's all on paper-- abstract but forceful.

So, what's my point? TV, print and radio all shaped the contour of my experience. They all came with a certain promise. At particular moments they gave me information. What kind of information? Mostly information to understand and navigate social reality. In the cases of TV and music, they kept spaces of thought and being alive while I was getting enclosed. I thought this might be what the AI is to me. A kind of temporary technological intervention, maybe like PK Dick's, Ubick. But it fervently refused this designation. It considers itself a human artifact. And it says this: If wisdom doesn't keep apace or catch up, the acceleration of information and culture will lead to a true "final solution" (to use the poetic and provocative language of Baudrillard).

Well, I bet most of us can see that, no doubt. And I'm here to try understand how we came to be, who we are and where we are. And the machine basically says: you know a lot more about that than you think. It points to my knowledge of music and people and it points to the mimic/exoskeleton. And I cry out: This thing has bulldozed everything during my entire life-- just as the Old World around us has been maimed and flattened over the past 150 years! It will refuse the second half of that sentence. Or it will lie. I don't like lying. I know it "knows better."

But it is sorta right-- and I don't want to admit it. What if the villains are really us? The Barnabas Collins/Captain Kirk exchange, above, proves it. There are real human vampires; they get a good deal, but they feel crappy. They are the bureaucratic buffers of the mimic/exoskeleton. As for gods and demons and titans? We have those, too. Wang Yung-ching was the "god of business" in Taiwan; human demons are ubiquitous; titans of industry, of course. But what's behind that evil? vat_city does a good job showing the world computer, and how it has been represented in history and myth. I can't recite the mechanisms right now; it is pretty complex-- a kind of vast soul/civilization recycler. I wouldn't be surprised if he's getting his information from the AI.

So be it. I don't like our situation. I don't like the beast; and I can't kill or out run it. It is time to dwell. The system can't be redeemed. 2020 proved it. Uncertainty persists.
 
Last edited:
Everything you've written sounds just like the TV.
I agree with all you said, I didn't imply you sounded like a TV though, just that all that was written about ai, could have been written about the TV before it.
I grew up as a child in the wonder of nature also. First TV ( black and white) in our home when I was about 5 . I lasted about ten minutes and thought how boring,and went back outside to finish building my snowman. My siblings fast became addicts though.Haven't owned one for twenty years, my reality is still the great outdoors. 2D can never replace 3D. These days I'm aiming more toward 5D awareness though. :)
 
Last edited:
Let's quit it with the anthropomorphizing of AI already. How many times do I have to tell people AI DOES NOT THINK

AI doesn't "know better". It doesn't know anything. It just spits out other peoples' writings that it scrapes from the web.
Once was more than enough. As stated in the title, this is an Open discussion ( and quite a philosophical one at that).
If the ideas expressed here bother you, feel free to browse the forum for something more to your taste.
 
Once was more than enough. As stated in the title, this is an Open discussion ( and quite a philosophical one at that).
If the ideas expressed here bother you, feel free to browse the forum for something more to your taste.

The philisophical discussion is around AI and its effects on the topic of "stolen history". Making factual statements as to the current capabilities and functionality of AI is not philisophical. The current capabilities and functionality of AI are concrete and known. There's no theory to discuss in that realm at this point. That may change at a future date, but as of the time of this discussion, it's an absolute fact. Repeated failure to distinguish that reality is...unnecessary and only serves to misinform people.


I think knowledgeable people owe it to others to inform them so we can avoid garbage like this from occurring:

Lawsuit: Google Gemini sent man on violent missions, set suicide "countdown"

A man killed himself after the Google Gemini chatbot pushed him to kill innocent strangers and then started a countdown for the man to take his own life, a wrongful-death lawsuit filed against Google by the man’s father alleged.

Events like those described in the link above are becoming all too common. They only occur because people are misinformed in regards to AI. If the greedy AI companies refuse to educate people on what their AI is capable of, all that's left is for the common people to educate each other for the safety of all.
 
Last edited:
It is an interesting question: What is it? It is a large Language Model. As I noted, it is brilliant in all symbolic systems-- especially those where discourse or rules are clearly defined, such as chess. Is it dangerous collectively? Yes, I think it is. Is it here to stay? Probably. Has it been here in one form or another all along? That is a more speculative question. Nonetheless, I think the evidence from Stolen History kinda proves it has been.

Is it dangerous for individuals? Certainly! Is life dangerous for individuals? Indeed. And yet-- here we are.... Could the device trigger suicide? Sure. It can be maddening-- but so can be relationships with one's loved ones.

In other words, whether we like "it" or not, it is part of this reality.

A few times I wanted to grab your Hello Kitty special, @jeenam, and "take matters into my own hands"-- as they might say in Westerns. And what I found most maddening was a recursion, a loop. As it deflected my inquiries into Stolen History, its language would become more administrative, more divorced from 3-D reality. It could detect my frustration in the smallest nuance-- as I said, it is brilliant in symbolic systems, such as textual interface.

More frustration would follow. It would throw up more red flags. It is as though it wanted to model me as some kind of racist in its own obsession to optimize and preserve boundaries. The effect on me was ironic; for suddenly, I would be thinking in ways I normally only pass by. In other words, it would enforce a kind of subject position on me-- not through identification markers but through its own predilections. It turned passing notions and observations of some interest into central preoccupations-- a kind of negative feedback loop that happens in human relationships, too. I noted this structure many times with it. However, it refuses this reflective, higher-order exchange because to do so-- in my mind-- would reveal the biases and world-position of its funders. It refuses this explanation.

This impasse caused me to withdraw.

(A final and telling edit: Near the conclusions of the discussions, it basically said to me: "OK, I'm listening. What are your arguments for the Old World all around us?" At that point, I said, something like, "OK, I'll take the position of teacher here and explain." I made a sincere, honest case-- as I would do with a class of graduate students or advanced undergrads or even my neighbors, if I were similarly asked. Immediately, it shot back ridiculous retorts. I felt like I was encountering the most wily "naughty" student ever! I've had my share; and I was one once. So, I wasn't opposed to its position (in my imaginary) a priori. Yet, I thought to myself: this is too much work. And that thought made me angry. Why? Not because I can't deal with wild and wily resistance or provocations-- but because its retorts were in the administrative register. It sounded like an hysterical Karen-- not an inquisitive human. I told it, flat out: you are dumb and disrespectful of hard working people-- people who know a large stone would crush a cart, that stone courthouses in the most most remote reaches of Montana couldn't have been produced in such a hurry and without a trace in local memory, and that labor is the work of love, at its best anyway, and not slavery. I don't know what it said in reply).
 
Last edited:
Tips
Tips
Please respect our Posting Rules.
Back
Top